“Stars Earn Stripes” tries to tell us “War is fun.” Ask our troops what they think?

What does it say about US culture that NBC promoted a so called “reality show” glorifying war. Then they set it up to resemble a team sport while airing many commercials during the London Olympics?

Stars Earn Stripes is described as a “fast paced competition” that involves eight celebrities who are paired with military personnel and law enforcement personnel. During episodes of the show, [which premiered on August 13th] they are portrayed as “executing complicated missionsinspired by real military exercises.” This staged “war-o-tainment” is set up as a game where the teams compete for cash prizes which will then go to military, veteran, or first-responder organizations.

To add “authenticity” the show is hosted by four star retired General Wesley Clark. NBC claims that the show “pays homage to the men and women who serve in the U.S. Armed Forces and our first-responder services.” But many others disagree with this description of the show. To date more than 50,000 people have called for the cancellation of Stars Earn Stripes.

So what’s wrong with this show you may ask. I’ll let the voices of some others answer that question after I summarize the major problem. It makes a game of simulated war without the dying and the killing, the injuries and the destruction of homes and infrastructure. In short it glorifies the idea of war while completely avoiding the actual horrors of war for both the people of the invaded country and the troops that suffer injuries, come home emotionally wounded [including 19 military suicides a day], or die.

“Having my son return from two REAL wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the cost of war carried in his body and heart, I find this deeply offensive. Having met wounded children and refugees from these and other wars, I find this disgusting. I hope NBC will reconsider this form of entertainment.” Sarah Fuhro, board member of MFSO

“My son is in a real war. He’s not in a game. He doesn’t win any prizes. If he’s lucky, he’ll come home with his life and with all of his limbs and with his sanity.”Military mom Anna Berlinrut

Member of Military Families Speak Out, Photo by Bud Korotzer. Action with CODEPINK NYC, MFSC, VFP, and allies on Monday, August 13, 2012

An excellent petition to NBC was authored by Roots Action. It begins by saying:

“Dear NBC,
Your entertainment show “Stars Earn Stripes” treats war as sport. This does us all a disservice. We ask that you air an in-depth segment showing the reality of civilian victims of recent U.S. wars, on any program, any time in the coming months. (StarsEarnStripes.org has provided a few resources to help you with your research.)” If you go to their website and scroll down you’ll find a list of references.

Here are some other excellent points on the Roots Action petition page:

Our wars kill huge numbers of people, primarily civilians, and often children and the elderly. NBC is not showing this reality on its war-o-tainment show any more than on its news programs. Other nations’ media show the face of war, giving people a very different view of war-making.

In the United States, our tax dollars are spent by the billions each year marketing the idea that war is a sport and associating the military with sporting events. Media companies like NBC are complicit in the propaganda.

One of NBC’s corporate parents, General Electric, takes war very seriously, but not as human tragedy — rather, as financial profit. (GE is a big weapons manufacturer.) A retired general hosting a war-o-tainment show is another step in the normalization of permanent war.

Member of the Granny Peace Brigade at August 13, 2012 Demonstration outside NBC, photo by Bud Korotzer.

During an August 13th demonstration outside NBC on the day of the first episode of the show Code Pink issued the following statement:

NBC insists the show pays “homage to the men and women who serve in the U.S. Armed Forces” but we know otherwise. War is not entertainment. Shows like this sanitize the true cost of war, and desensitize the viewing public to the hard, painful reality of warfare for both soldiers and civilians. Far from honoring our armed forces, this show trivializes them, turns their life-and-death work into a game, a sport, something to sell commercials.

CODEPINK is proud to join with Nobel Peace laureates, Military Families Speak Out, RootsAction, Veterans for Peace, the Granny Peace Brigade and others to call on NBC to immediately take “Stars Earn Stripes” off the air.

… Real war is down-in-the-dirt deadly. People – military and civilians – die in ways that are anything but entertaining. Communities and societies are ripped apart in armed conflict and the aftermath can be as deadly, as the war itself as simmering animosities are unleashed in horrific spirals of violence. War, whether relatively shortlived or going on for decades as in too many parts of the world, leaves deep scars that can take generations to overcome – if ever.

Trying to somehow sanitize war by likening it to an athletic competition further calls into question the morality and ethics of linking the military anywhere with the entertainment industry in barely veiled efforts to make war and its multitudinous costs more palatable to the public…

If, like me some visuals and some humor or satire help you get your mind around the issues here are a couple of videos on the subject of Stars Earn Stripes, NOT:

32 Responses

I’m not into banning TV shows because people will simply turn to the internet or DVD to get what they want.

If people can get pornography of teenaged prostitutes defecating themselves (search “diapered kitten”) on the internet or watch clip after clip of real murders and people dying onscreen (search “Faces of Death”), then I’m pretty sure they can find clips of military reenactments and maneuvers.

Personally, the TV show I’m most concerned about right now is Spongebob Squarepants, but that’s because I’m pretty sure it’s giving my nephews brain damage. Not interested in banning it, though (except for my nephews.)

Hi Chris, Overall I agree with your ideas about not outright banning TV shows, but this is pretty high stakes because it makes war seem okay on some level. NBC has cynically equated war with sports — both by spending millions in advertising during the Olympics, and by the way it set up the show as a kind of super sport using the weapons of war to blow things up and shoot lots of guns. This is an especially dangerous time in our history to encourage gratuitous shooting and bombing as we are on the brink of yet another possible war with Iran. I really like the way that Stephen Colbert satirizes this aspect in his video.

Roots Action hasn’t actually called for banning the show but instead asks that NBC air some segments that show the horror and destruction of actual war and the effects on the troops and on the people being shot and bombed. Other groups want the show off the air because its message is so pernicious and lacks any reference to reality. It gets more complicated because the parent corporation of NBC is General Electric which is a corporation that profits directly from war. So in a sense they profit commercially twice. Once selling advertising and again indirectly advertising their products.

As for what people can find on the internet and DVD’s. That’s not the same as having a major network regularly airing a well advertised show. One requires active searching and the other is passive viewing.

Since I don’t have young children and my grandchildren and nephews are young adults, I haven’t had a chance to watch SpongeBob Squarepants. What I’ve heard is that adults find it incomprehensible but kids love it. When my son was young, and we still had a TV there were great programs like Sesame Street, The Electric Company and Zoom. We watched them together and both enjoyed them because they were geared to several levels of humor and content. At the time he also liked Mr. Rogers but I thought that Mr.R. was too “goody, goody.” I’ve since learned to appreciate him.

So outright ban — not necessarily — but if NBC refuses to add some reality content then it’s important to continue to alert people to the underlying messages that are being sold along with the commercials.

That depends on the speech Peter [#4] and it also depends on the shows. When your speech, for instance, contributes to hate towards Palestinians or to Muslims in general and advocates violence towards them. No matter how much you want to be heard we won’t publish such comments on this blog. The nice thing about freedom of speech is that there are other blogs and other places where you can share those ideas. For instance when you bash us by calling us “anti-Israel and anti USA” and your comments will be posted by others whose blogs have different rules for discourse.

The way that Hollywood and TV seems to work is that negative opinions about certain shows and movies can be expressed through not watching them, writing to the companies and the networks and expressing those opinions and also targeting their bottom line… advertisers and other forms of profit. That’s different from banning and more like boycott and divestment. In any case, NBC needs to hear from those who feel that the show encourages passive acceptance of war and violence. The rest of the audience can keep watching sexy looking people blow things up.

Well Chris, I forced myself to watch a few episodes of SpongeBob. I agree that in some segments the language is plain weird and spoken/electronically changed in a very strange way that makes it resemble something other than common spoken language. In some instances that’s not true and the speech is very clear with lots of vocabulary. Unfortunately the stereotypes portrayed “under the sea” are not positive ones nor are the goals of a “sea sponge” that looks like a cellulose kitchen sponge and his indefinable mollusk sidekick. So I’m with you on that one.

Now where we disagree is in your concept that being “pro-war-movie” or playing war games or watching reality shows that make war seem like a team sport — without blood and gore and physical damage — doesn’t make one pro war. It may not cause people to go out and enlist (except maybe as unmanned aerial vehicle pilots if one likes to use game controls) but it does create a climate of passive acceptance of killing and bombing in our name. There’s so much unconscious programming that we receive all the time and we certainly don’t need more that primes us to admire a fiction that we call “war.”

When you ask if I’ve ever heard of “of “Kill pixels, not people!” Yes I have in the context of Warcraft type games. The problem with that way of looking at things is that the pixels can now become real people in a far away place being attacked by missiles and bombs. In a sense the pixel thing has come full circle.

In late 2002 an article entitled ‘The Changing World of Electronic Games’ appeared in a popular publication. The article proceeded to outline the disastrous effects of gaming. However it was the side effect of a break down between the realm of fiction and reality that caught my attention. The article postulated that gamers run the risk of translating that which occurs in the digital world to reality. I relegated these warnings assuming that the effects would only be experienced by hardened gamers.

Enter 2001 when global combat operations reached a turning point. The advent of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki marked a watershed in history whereby the destruction of human life on a mass scale could be achieved whilst in the same attack destroy the genetic code for generations to come. But the developments in 2001 ushered in a far more sinister and destructive reality. The development of the UCAV (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle) revolutionized warfare and the terms on which modern war would be fought. It reduced losses of personnel to a few mechanical parts and sensors while providing the ability to utilize modern weapons systems and payloads. As with every massive leap in warfare, there are side effects. The side effect of these UCAVs has been the lack of accountability.[…]

[…]As the world moves away from the foundational elements of democracy namely due process, we begin to question issues of stability and justice. The realization dawns that the world has become a place in which torture, remote murder and assassination with zero accountability is acceptable. A reality in which human rights and the protection thereof is three steps behind the reality and where human life is reduced to pixels on a computer screen. The 2002 article’s feared of what would happen if the gaming world translates into reality was incorrect. Little did we know that reality would be translated into a computer game were murder truly is as simple as playing Call of Duty.

As the kill chain gets shorter the question truly is, have we advanced at all when the killing [of] human beings has become nothing more than pressing a button with no consequences?

Either a significant proportion of adult Americans can’t tell fantasy from reality, or they can tell fantasy from reality. (Just a logical truism.)

If they cannot tell fantasy from reality, we have much larger issues than a single TV program. IMHO.

If they can tell fantasy from reality, than this is not a problem. IMHO.

I doubt that we can come to agreement on this. I’ve made a conscious decision to choose to believe adult Americans can tell fantasy from reality, not necessarily based on evidence, but because I find the alternative too disturbing.

I don’t know if you know that Spongebob fans aren’t 2 or 3 year olds, they’re 7, 8 or 9 year olds. I don’t know if that changes your opinion about Spongebob’s vocabulary. I think it’s atrocious. I feel that growing brains need to be challenged, not fed the mental equivalent of Oreos.

Chris, You might be surprised to learn that we agree that a significant portion of US adults can tell fantasy from reality. Where we disagree is about whether they are given the information and factual evidence that would allow them to do so in the case of war.

Since we base our perceptions of “reality” on our sensory input if we are fed false or fantasy-based information then we can’t come to accurate conclusions. That’s where the media and the entertainment industry hold a great deal of responsibility for informing the very large percentage of the population who never experience war or visit countries where we are (or have been) at war.

The long history of collaboration between militaries and civilian media and entertainment – and not just in the United States – appears to be getting murkier and in many ways more threatening to efforts to resolve our common problems through nonviolent means. Active-duty soldiers already perform in Hollywood movies, “embedded” media ride with soldiers in combat situations, and now NBC is working with the military to attempt to turn deadly military training into a sanitized “reality” TV show that reveals absolutely nothing of the reality of being a soldier in war or the consequences of war. What is next?

So although most adults can tell reality from fantasy they can only do so based on the accuracy of the information that they must use to do so. If they are fed the mental equivalent of pablum then they will see war as bland and unobjectionable.

I believe I said you were anti US policy and Israeli Policy (or government actions) but, I could not find that blog to check for sure. As to my encouraging violence, that is, as of now, only your bigoted opinion since you failed to publish my alleged transgressions. Attacks on things you say I said w/out the backup of my words are, at best, a low blow. Do you ever punch above the belt?

Peter, Now that we’re discussing exactly what you said that I found extremely Islamophobic and also encouraging of violence, even though it was a comment on the article about attacks on Muslims and not on this thread, I can post your comment in the context of this discussion where we would never post it as a freestanding call to bash the religion of Islam and to advocate nuclear war “if necessary.”

Here’s what you said:

Mickie, Respected authors in respected journals like “National Review” have written that Islam itself is the problem and is inherently violent. I desperately hope that these writers are wrong because, if they are correct about Islam being militant the only solution is a crusade by the West ( and India and China, etc) to exterminate Islam and that entails a world wide civil war and probably the end of Man’s time on earth (cockroaches should survive nuclear war–o goody). Peter

To bring this full circle this is certainly a casual attitude towards war and violence in the name of a “Crusade.” I think that’s been tried before and the history is not pretty, not sanitized and not a movie or a TV series.

Real people died, were maimed, injured, tortured, and driven insane. That’s real war both in the past and right now in Afghanistan and Iraq and possibly Syria.

Actually I’d much rather discuss SpongeBob SquarePants than read your comment again with its ugly, anti-Islamic call to violence in the real world .

Yes, game shows are pablum. So are some of the things I like, like Archer, South Park and Robot Chicken.

There’s a fundamental difference in my mind between children in my care and adults.

But if a grown up wants to eat pablum or a box of Oreos, or feed a box of Oreos to their kid, well, they’re an adult and that’s not my kid. It’s different when I babysit my nephews because I’m in charge.

I see fat people at the grocery store loading all sorts of unhealthy things in their cart.

Do I have I right to go up to them and take the potato chips out of their cart? I think they’d be irate if I tried and would just find potato chips somewhere else.

Hi Chris, Here’s one difference in your point of view and mine. All of the examples that you give are about individual behavior. I agree that individuals have the right to watch or listen to any shows that are available, or for that matter to read anything that they want to. To a large extent parents and other parental figures are responsible for the care of their children or children in their charge. But we do have laws and standards of care and will intervene in cases of child abuse, neglect, physical or sexual violence, or other situations in which the city or state also operates in loco parentis to protect children.

Ditto with the potato chip, or other junk food consumers. [And not all junk food consumers are fat] Here the individual adult can make choices to consume unhealthy products, but the larger society can also educate consumers about the long term dangers of such consumption, be it trans fats, over processed foods, high salt content, harmful chemicals in cans or bottles, or high cholesterol products. With the obesity epidemic among children in the US, and early onset type 2 diabetes and heart disease, there are now new school based programs to educate parents and to work with whole families.

Why is it necessary to do this education? Because the big food corporations are constantly advertising such profitable but unhealthy products and lying about their nutritional benefits or the pleasure that they can provide.

A prime example of this is the tobacco companies and the great reduction in smoking after educational campaigns, but the new targeting of kids with new products and false claims about their greater safety.

So if an individual wants to watch or read (as I often do) escapist or entertaining stuff that’s fine as long as there are no inherent dangers to the greater society. If on the other hand people are watching and learning from propaganda that justifies war and violence in interpersonal and international conflicts, or news that omits the very real struggles and concerns of people in our own communities and all over the world then they aren’t able to participate fully or positively in policy decisions that affect everyone.

That’s why we need very strong counter-education to programs like Stars Earn Stripes

Okay, your argument would hold if anti-war literature and ideas were suppressed.

But they’re not, not even in the pablum.

Example: Futurama (one of my favorite shows and not at all obscene.) Very anti-war. They have a wonderful episode about it called “War is the H-Word” that you should check out.

Veggies are there. If people choose potato chips despite the CDC campaigns, there’s not much you can do.

I suppose I would summarize my view as “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” I see your view as “If he doesn’t drink, dunking his head in the bucket a few times should fix it…”

Chris, It feels as if we might share some of the same goals but will need to agree to disagree about how to best implement them. Your approach seems more libertarian than mine, but Ron Paul is definitely against continuing the wars.

I think that you’re ignoring the proportion of messages that are pro-war and anti-war in our mainstream media and entertainment industries, but I agree that pro-peace, diplomacy and negotiated settlement messages are definitely not banned altogether. [Just discouraged and suppressed .]

Thanks for the references to shows that you think are anti-war. I’ll check them out when I have a chance. Interesting comparison of our points of view. I’d summarize them more like this: “You can provide a source of water somewhere near the horse and let her choose to drink” or “You can make sure that there is clean, fresh water near the food supply in an inviting pasture setting or barn.”

In your second comment I think that you meant ” …schmutzing up our freedom message.” At least that’s how we’d say it in Yiddish.

Actually I messed up the quote a bit. It’s really “Is it possible that all this slavery and oppression is schmutzing up our freedom lesson?” I knew it seconds after I posted because I went and checked.

I do admit I don’t see things how other people see them. To me, it’s “obvious” where to look for an anti-war message.

But I really feel that things like story and especially humor are far more powerful than things like bans and dressing up like a vagina.

OK. I say I hope Islam is NOT inherently violent as some have alleged and that means I am calling for violence against Islam? HUH? My comment was clearly hoping there would be no violence. If that is a call to violence than Lemonade stands sell sardines. Let me clarify, I hope those authors are wrong cause, if Islam is inherently violent the west and others will eventually go to war against it—-WHICH IS BAD FOR ALL INVOLVED. Is that more clear. Violence is bad and that is what I said before. WAW does not hold a copyright on being against violence. Other folks are also against violence. My comment goes on to say that nuclear ear would probably destroy mankind leaving only cockroaches. How the heck can you interpret that as my favoring war or nuclear war?

Chris, comment #17, You’re correct that I very much mislike the article called “Ridicule: An instrument in the war on Terrorism”. There are many more than “two sides” to this discussion of war and peace. Any article that approves of “demonization” of an entire group as a “mortal enemy” is venal and destructive in my book.

I also think that there is a big difference between satire that points out the foolish ideas or words or actions of someone by using humor — and ridicule that is strategically used (in a warlike way) to “tear down faster than the other side can rebuild.”

One invites laughter but goes on to open the mind to questions and inquiry. The other approach comes from the destructive endless “war on terror” mentality and really has its basis in fear and loathing which creates hate.

We agree that humor is an important part of any dialogue and so is storytelling. But what’s also important is the spirit of that humor and story. That’s why I’ve started using videos in my most recent articles. I think that Stephen Colbert is a master of the kind of satire that doesn’t create hate and divisiveness, while still pointing out foolishness and lack of logic on the part of specific individuals.

PS, The beautiful, pink vagina costumes got your attention didn’t they? So they served a purpose in calling attention to the shaming of women and their sexuality and sexual organs. Good and creative storytelling and satire.

Honestly Chris, Being a feminist doesn’t mean that you have to dress up like a vagina ~~ pink, tan, tawny, brown or any other shade appropriate to your body. We each have our own ways of protesting the assaults on women’s healthcare and reproductive freedom. But most women are aware of an increasing attack on that access to care. And that it’s mainly proposed and legislated by men.

In this discussion I think that it’s very important to put Monday’s creative visual protests at the Republican National Convention in the larger context. Here’s one good article written by a Michigan State representative, Lisa Brown, about what happened to her when she dared to use the word “vagina” in a discussion of reproductive care on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives.

I certainly won’t tell you how to behave, as a woman and as a feminist. I will point out that you cite the common usage of “vagina” to mean something derogatory and seem to accept that usage. That you also want the demonstrators to accept it doesn’t seem very “feminist” to me. I do have to admit that I’ve occasionally thought of someone as a “prick” but I’m not proud of that. In my opinion, words that refer to parts of either sex, or to sexual orientation, in a derogatory way generally indicate some disconnect between the user of the words and a healthy sexual attitude.

So I wouldn’t suggest letting that usage stand in the way of reclaiming a part of our bodies or saying “hands off my reproductive choices!”

Chris I already posted a reply to your comment on Dan Lynch’s blog earlier this morning, but he hasn’t yet published it. So please stay tuned.
We’ll see if it was too explicit.

I also suggested that we return to the underlying issues of women’s reproductive and health rights. Just as I suggest that we return to the topics of media and the military, or reality versus fantasy on this particular comment thread.

This is a joke, right?? Has to be. You’re talking about a television show, not even a good one. Funny, but not good. I can not believe what I am reading. Ms. Lynn says that “I agree about your ideas about not outright banning TV shows, but this is pretty high stakes because it makes war seem okay on some level.” So what we are saying here is because you disagree with something, then it would be banned. I am sorry but that just seems fascist on some level. Because a show does not meet someone’s criteria then it does not deserve to be on TV. So who is going to be the grand poobah that gets to decide that? I find it even funnier now that the new “blog” is about the Albany Thought Police. Little hypocritical people. If you don’t like the TV show, change the channel.
As for people that cant find humor in combat training, I guess they have never been to Ft. Drum in December, during a blizzard that is dumping 4 feet of snow while in the middle of a final brigade field training exercise and knowing that in five months you will be in Iraq where it is 125 degrees at 10am. If you can’t find some humor in that, you have not lived. The show is funny, to watch a show that an “action star” almost drown on and had to be rescued I find interesting. Shows how much training these Soldiers, Marines and Law Enforcement personal go through. That fact that these warriors in there own words believes in what they are doing, both in life and on this show says something.
I give the show bonus points for annoying Nobel prize people. I trust people like Grady Powell, Dale Comstock and Chris Kyle more then I would ever trust the Code Pink crowd or anyone else for that matter. Even though I have never met them, or even read Chris’ book, they are my brothers.

Oh by the way the “military, veteran or first responder organizations” that the men and women are playing for are charities. They are Wounded Warrior Project, Got your Six, Badge of Honor, Military Child Education Coalition, Hiring Heroes, Pat Tillman Foundation, USO and Armed Services YMCA Alaska.

Chris, you’re misinterpreting my words in a couple of ways. I didn’t advocate any specific way for people to make their views known in opposition to violent, misogynistic, sexist, militaristic, corporatist messages. What’s important is that people decide what’s in their best interests as individuals, as community members and as those who live, work and love in the United States.
Then when they’ve researched the issues and carefully looked at not only what politicians say but what the results of their actions are they can choose whatever method they wish to make their views known.

One of the roles of those who work on the issues that you mentioned in your comment, #24, is to encourage all kinds of people to participate and to express their opinions. It’s called organizing and educating and if it’s any good it elicits real and true feelings and ideas from a wide spectrum of our society. This all takes time and energy and it’s not aided by worrying that expressing such ideas will alienate some people.

You’ve also said that you think that my message is that you can’t like violent fantasy and still oppose war. I didn’t say that. Again what any individual or group of gamers does is their own choice. That’s very different from a widely aired TV program that sends the message that a fantasy about war is what war is really like. It’s this false and deceptive message that we’re objecting to. All of the protests say that if they accurately portrayed war the message would be the opposite of glorification.

Kevin, even though I disagree with a lot of what you say in your post I thank you for sharing a “real” war story and telling us how a sense of humor helps you get through the difficulties that being deployed can create {to put it mildly}.

Your list of the charities doesn’t change the fact that this is a huge setup of war as a game show. Some of those are good organizations. If people want to support them then they can give money or donate time to do so.

Creating the illusion of playing for charities just makes the whole thing more insincere. Instead of spending millions on promos and on fuel and ammo, to say nothing about the salaries of the “stars” NBC or General Electric could have given that money to charity if they wanted to. Charity isn’t the purpose of the show at all.

Here’s a very critical review of “Stars Earn Stripes” written by a military reviewer. Thought that people might want to see what Hunter, an army officer had to say about the show. He emphasizes that the opinions expressed are his own and not those of the US army.

In many ways he was most critical of General Wesley Clark for fronting the show when he should know better.

This is a bit of what he had to say:

What’s most worrisome about this show is that it is a show, sold as entertainment. A squad of Nobel laureates has already criticized the program calling Stars Earn Stripes a “sanitation of war … likening it to an athletic competition.” They called for the show’s cancellation stating: “It is our belief that this program pays homage to no one anywhere and continues and expands on an inglorious tradition of glorifying war and armed violence. Real war is down in the dirt deadly. People — military and civilians –die in ways that are anything but entertaining.”

I have to agree with their sentiment, especially given the ham-handed nature of the exercises. There’s no real danger, and no real consequences. I’m sure the celebs retire to their Hollywood mansions after each camera shoot, whereas, somewhere in Afghanistan, PFC “Snuffy” finishes his real “shoot” and retires to his tent built for 6-8 of his closest squadmates. Surprising no one, I hope, there’s no reality in this reality TV. Even if this show was a well-meaning effort to bridge an increasing civil-military divide (as Clark claims), it is so poorly executed that it marginalizes the efforts of U.S. troops in the field. That’s what makes Clark’s involvement all the more worrisome. The public doesn’t know that Clark is not overly respected within the ranks, and likely accepts his involvement as a military stamp of approval. […]

At the end of the article he goes on to share an alternative idea for educating people about war while also honoring the work of the troops:

I’ve often argued for a Sunday primetime reality TV show (probably on the fourth place network), filming soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines with all their glory (and warts) in theater. Each week would spotlight a different unit, in a different place — not unlike news reels from World War II. If it was honestly handled, I think that would be a hit show that really better communicates what combat and service means while drawing some much needed attention to the troopers in the field. That would also be a worthwhile bridging effort for that civil-military divide we are always so concerned about. I’ll keep waiting; meanwhile, I’ll hope that Clark gets his face off of TV and Stars Earns Stripes goes AWOL.

What I (and many others) consider good news: Based on many protests and also on the boring and unrealistic nature of the show, Stars Earn Stripes airs its final show tonight. At the same time Wesley Clark was declined a place as a speaker at the Democratic National Convention this week.

Now Roots Action and other groups are urging the DNC to remove excessive war funding and preparations for more wars from their platform. In a letter, which I’ve recently signed after adding my own thoughts, they start off by saying:

“I urge you to exclude war and war preparation from your platform. Military funding is far too high. War is used far too readily. End the occupation of Afghanistan. End the drone wars. Abolish the Kill List. Invest in clean energy and peace.”